Do the Bills now have the worst defense in NFL?

[BillsVet]

I think it's safe to say we've got starters at both DE spots, maybe 1 DT, 1 CB, both safeties, and wherever Crowell plays. After that, it's anyone's guess. One CB, perhaps 2 LB's, and DT are at issue. You don't get all that in the draft and I don't even think we can get that this year with free agency in addition. DJ said we're probably gonna go D in the draft. Now I see why. We'll be young on D and it could supply plenty of growing pains.

 

And enough about the Cover 2 already. Even teams like Chicago that feature it may only run it on about 40-50 percent of their plays. What happens the other plays? It appears Spikes is gone, either in a trade or as a cap casualty. If that's the case, we get even younger. I realize he's probably not going to be the player he once was, but youth isn't always a plus. And we're getting younger this season on defense.

[keepthefaith]

No. The Bills do not have the worst defense in the NFL. Let's go over the basics:

 

D-Line, Kyle should be better, McCargo is back, Larry is in his prime, and we might add somebody else better than Tim Anderson, line better than last year.

 

Linebackers we lost a player who is a great guy, but was not being an impact player and was mostly making tackles 7 yards downfield. Wait and see, but I don't think we let him walk because we couldn't afford him, but beacuse we expect to get better at that position. Ellison and Crowell would both be expected to contribute more next year than this year, and TKO will either contribute more (my hope) or clear some cap space.

 

DBs, Ko and Dante have a year under their belt and should be better, Terrance had a bad year and should rebound at least somewhat, and right now we have Youboty replacing Nate (a downgrade) and hope to resign KT. I would have to give DBs a push or only slight downgrade, because of the experience factor of the safeties.

 

But with the draft we will get an impact corner or an impact linebackers (I hope LB). And we could still sign someone on D. I think that without a question our D is better next year, especially considering it is year two of a new scheme for what was a very young D. Experience for everbody (only Spikes would be on the decline), adding McCargo, adding Youboty, and some good draft picks will make our D better than last year and nowhere near the worst in the league.

 

 

I need some help here. Ellison is frequently mentioned in various posts as a guy we can expect to be a contributing starter. I would agree that based on where he was drafted, he exceeeded expectations last year. Heck, I doubt anyone expected him to play much at all. I didn't see much much last year in his play that would convince me that he can be a starting quality LB on a team with playoff ambitions. Disagree? Why? What makes you think he can get it done?

[Alaska Darin]

I knew "Darin the Doomed" couldn't be far behind LA.

That's how we roll. I wait to see what he's going to say, then parrot it. Everyone knows it - thanks for pointing it out.

The faux Pats/Bruschi worship is almost as old as the doomed stuff. But thanks for the insight. Yawn.

I'm just trying to fit in. Another thing I'm pretty well known for. I do have a couple of questions: Is it as old as bitching about the team when the season is half a year away? Or is it as old as trying to continue to fit the "Marv is too old and was never any good anyway" sh(i)t that you've been trying to fill everyone's hat with for the last year and a half?

 

Insight? On TBD? Toss down another glass of self importance, padre.

[cåblelady]

Next year when the Bills are giving up 5.0 ypc, make sure to remind me how overrated London Fletcher and Nate Clements were.

Badol........dave was right when he said you're better than this. You have one of the best football minds out there. You've amazed me time and time again with your insights. I just don't understand where all your negativity is coming from. It's perplexing. Am I going to have to tie you to the porta-potty next year?

[Bill from NYC]

I understand the idea of improving the defense by controlling the clock and getting leads on offense, but you still have to be able to play some defense.

 

Badol, with total respect for your opinion, I am asking you to take another look at the above; these ARE your words, and they are correct. I would like to add a couple of points to be considered......

 

1) Nate IS a great player. He is big, fast, hits hard and he is super-athletic. The thing is, we have zero playoff games since he has been to town. Why not? The biggest reason is no blocking imo.

 

2) Along with controlling the clock goes beating up opponents at the line of scrimage. I ask you to remember the images of Fat Mike Williams getting pushed to the turf, Gandy getting blown to bits, CV getting beat on virtually every play, etc. Now, maybe, just maybe it is our turn to beat up defenders and have a tough, mean football team. It is painful to watch them get physically abused up week after week, especially at RWS.

 

I am sorry that we lost Nate, but this team needed a drastic change. As for London, I liked him to, but many LBs have been coming out of college and producing right away as opposed to the past (and I'm not even sure why).

 

Sorry Bro, but I gotta say that I am in full support of what is taking place, even more after reading your praise of Dockery.

[Coach Tuesday]

One thing everyone seems to agree with in this thread is that the Bills could have done 1 of 2 things (an over-simplification but bear with me):

 

1) Keep Nate and Fletch (with the money given to Dockery and Walker) and addressed the o-line through the draft

 

OR

 

2) Let Nate and Fletch go and address the o-line with free-agency (Walker and Dockery), and worry about MLB and CB in the draft/lower-tier FAs.

 

They obviously went with #2.

 

BADOL seems to be suggesting they should've gone with #1.

 

Here's my point: how does #1 give us ANY chance of improvement over the product they put on the field last year? The draft is a crapshoot - who is to say the Bills would have been able to score quality rookie o-linemen who could come in and contribute immediately?

 

FOR ONCE IN ALMOST 20 YEARS THE BILLS CHOSE TO INVEST IN CERTAINTY IN THE OFFENSIVE LINE

 

Step back a moment and consider that - it is a wonderful, awe-inspiring event. For years some of us have been BEGGING this organization to go overboard addressing the o-line for a change - overpay if necessary, use all first-day picks on o-linemen, etc. Finally they got the message. This coaching staff and Marv are not stupid - they understand that a good offensive line minimizes risk. Good offensive lines carry average-to-below-average defenses into the playoffs. Look at Denver. Look at the Colts. KC.

 

They have been doing the opposite of what they did this offseason for years. TD was famous for overpaying for skill position players and trying to fix the line on the cheap. Where has it gotten them? How can anyone fault Marv & Co. for realizing finally that it wasn't working?

 

Finally, I'll say this: THE COLTS HAD STATISTICALLY ONE OF, IF NOT THE WORST DEFENSES IN THE LEAGUE LAST YEAR.

 

I'm gonna refrain from jumping off a bridge until I see what this product looks like. I for one am excited, not depressed.

[BADOLBILZ]

Are we looking at improvements in a vacuum? Is this team really better with LFB and NC staying on defense and keeping Villarial & Gandy on offense? Isn't that your argument? Or are you in a perfect position to argue both sides of the line that if Bills retained both or went after Adalius, we'd have the same post on how Bills keep ignoring the offensive line?

 

And please, if you're going to mention the money paid, please use real numbers. Nate's $10 mil/yr average is funny money. The real numbers are how much in upfront & guarantees - and that's a bit of a difference between Nate & Dockery, which allowed them to address another spot on the OL.

 

We really have to hope that improvements come from external or intangible factors, which is your point about the vacuum. That is the truth. But we can discuss now what we do know, and we've seen first hand the effect of losing key personnel has had on the Bills. The offensive meltdown after trading Peerless Price and letting go of vets Riemersma and Centers was HUGE. Losing Pat Williams caused a terrible ripple effect to the entire Bills defense that caused their performance to drop from excellent to awful. We've seen it, and we could well be seeing it again. Consider this, what happens if this defense goes out and puts up the same kind of performance against the run and pass, but doesn't take the ball away? How many games do the Bills win without winning the turnover ratio?

 

As far as the money goes, I was actually being conservative, because reportedlly the guaranteed money for Dockery and Walker exceeds that which Clements received.

[dave mcbride]

What a jackassed response. The Bills go out and have a terrible year in run defense in 2006, and you are ragging me about Adams. Hate to break it to you, Dave, but Adams was a pro-bowl alternate in 2005 and the Bills defense clearly fell apart in games at NE and Miami where the Bills blew leads after Mularkey benched him. But I'm sure the Bengals missed the playoffs this year because of Adams. Yeah, their rush defense was a lot better than Buffalo's, to the tune of about a half yard per carry AND 25 yards less per game(which is a lot, Dave), but WTF, he wasn't a Buffalo Bill so he must suck. Next year when the Bills are giving up 5.0 ypc, make sure to remind me how overrated London Fletcher and Nate Clements were.

I don't mean to start an argument about a guy who isn't here anymore, but Adams was completely ineffective in 05 and 06 and it's a joke that he was a pro bowl alternate in 05 (which you and I both know is an almost entirely meaningless honor).

 

Note the steady decline in production: http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/3006

 

The Bengals' vaunted D was ranked 30th out of 32 last year, and the Bills' D was ranked 18th (after ranking 29 in 05):

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/cin2006.htm

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/buf2006.htm

 

As for Fletcher, he's certainly not terrible, but he ain't great. Look, someone's gotta get credited with the tackles, and the more you're on the field, the more tackles you make. It's kinda like the NBA -- no matter how bad a team is, it'll always average 80 points and have a guy who averages around 20 points a game. Someone's gotta score the points, but that doesn't mean he's all that good ...

[Dawgg]

Evidence:

 

- The defense has lost the two biggest playmakers on the defensive side of the ball.

 

- The secondary is now extremely vulnerable and young. While many gush about the future of Ko Simpson and Whitner, the fact of the matter is it will take some time for them to develop into good players. Simpson looked fairly pedestrian most of the time. Without Clements holding down the fort in 2007, defensive coordinators will be salivating over at the prospect of attacking the safeties...

 

- And when they're not attacking safeties, they can go straight at Terrance McGee. While an excellent athlete, he has proven that he often has severe lapses... not good when he is your #1 corner. Even if they take a corner high in the draft, it will take some time for that new player to develop.

 

- The defense was among the worst against the run. Part of the reason for this was that one of the strengths of the unit was pass defense. Without Clements (or a viable replacement for him), the pass defense stands to be one fo the league's WORST... and yes, that's how imprortant Clements was to this unit.

 

So there's your evidence. The question wasn't whether the future (2-3 years from now) looks bright... it was about NEXT season's defense... and it sure doesn't look good!

 

I love this!! Based on what evidence, may i ask?

 

ypc? yards/pass attempt? turnovers? yards per game? Or -- gulp -- haven't they actually played any games yet?

 

You naysayers are too much -- I actually think you derive more pleasure out of Bills' failures than their successes, if only because they fulfill your consistently gloomy predictions. They may end up sucking, but neither you nor I know if that's going to be the case. Basically, you should relax and have fun watching the games.

 

Badol's big man, Mr. Sam Adams, may well have been the worst "name" DT in the NFL in 2005 (he sucked in 06 too, btw). Yet it was never acknowledged by his very vocal advocates. The Bills' defense, for all of its significant flaws, was markedly better in the second half of last season in comparison to 05, when they very well may have had the worst defense in the league.

 

They lose one important guy -- Clements -- who is now (remarkably) the highest paid defensive player in the league. Fletcher was never that great (I love that people are waxing nostalgic about this guy's turnover ability, btw -- every decent MLB comes up with turnovers), and he's not getting any younger.

 

It's not that bad.

[dave mcbride]

Evidence:

 

- The defense has lost the two biggest playmakers on the defensive side of the ball.

 

- The secondary is now extremely vulnerable and young. While many gush about the future of Ko Simpson and Whitner, the fact of the matter is it will take some time for them to develop into good players. Simpson looked fairly pedestrian most of the time. Without Clements holding down the fort in 2007, defensive coordinators will be salivating over at the prospect of attacking the safeties...

 

- And when they're not attacking safeties, they can go straight at Terrance McGee. While an excellent athlete, he has proven that he often has severe lapses... not good when he is your #1 corner. Even if they take a corner high in the draft, it will take some time for that new player to develop.

 

- The defense was among the worst against the run. Part of the reason for this was that one of the strengths of the unit was pass defense. Without Clements (or a viable replacement for him), the pass defense stands to be one fo the league's WORST... and yes, that's how imprortant Clements was to this unit.

 

So there's your evidence. The question wasn't whether the future (2-3 years from now) looks bright... it was about NEXT season's defense... and it sure doesn't look good!

 

Do you really think that Fletcher is a better playmaker than a 14 sack guy like Schoebel?

[BADOLBILZ]

One thing everyone seems to agree with in this thread is that the Bills could have done 1 of 2 things (an over-simplification but bear with me):

 

1) Keep Nate and Fletch (with the money given to Dockery and Walker) and addressed the o-line through the draft

 

OR

 

2) Let Nate and Fletch go and address the o-line with free-agency (Walker and Dockery), and worry about MLB and CB in the draft/lower-tier FAs.

 

They obviously went with #2.

 

BADOL seems to be suggesting they should've gone with #1.

 

Here's my point: how does #1 give us ANY chance of improvement over the product they put on the field last year? The draft is a crapshoot - who is to say the Bills would have been able to score quality rookie o-linemen who could come in and contribute immediately?

 

FOR ONCE IN ALMOST 20 YEARS THE BILLS CHOSE TO INVEST IN CERTAINTY IN THE OFFENSIVE LINE

 

Step back a moment and consider that - it is a wonderful, awe-inspiring event. For years some of us have been BEGGING this organization to go overboard addressing the o-line for a change - overpay if necessary, use all first-day picks on o-linemen, etc. Finally they got the message. This coaching staff and Marv are not stupid - they understand that a good offensive line minimizes risk. Good offensive lines carry average-to-below-average defenses into the playoffs. Look at Denver. Look at the Colts. KC.

 

They have been doing the opposite of what they did this offseason for years. TD was famous for overpaying for skill position players and trying to fix the line on the cheap. Where has it gotten them? How can anyone fault Marv & Co. for realizing finally that it wasn't working?

 

Finally, I'll say this: THE COLTS HAD STATISTICALLY ONE OF, IF NOT THE WORST DEFENSES IN THE LEAGUE LAST YEAR.

 

I'm gonna refrain from jumping off a bridge until I see what this product looks like. I for one am excited, not depressed.

 

You are grossly oversimplifying. In fact, my opinion was that the Bills should retain Nate and risk letting Fletcher and Kelsay go, THEN address the O-Line. They still could have signed Dockery or Steinbach. Could they have also signed Walker and not gone over what they've spent already? The question probably should be, who cares? He has not been a good lineman in the NFL, that's just a fact. I'd rather be looking for a #2a DE than a #1 corner, especially considering how HEAVILY the Bills leaned on that corner this year to get to the point of respectability.

 

You guys keep trying to generate these excuses why they HAD to make this decision or that and it's not the case. We went thru this when TD cut Ted Washington, traded Price, let Winfield and Williams walk, and even last year with Milloy and Adams........usually based on some hokey salary cap nonsense. Yet here they stood on March 1 with over $30M in cap room in a sellers market on the heels of 7 years and no playoffs. Wake up and smell it folks. MISMANAGEMENT.

[Coach Tuesday]

You are grossly oversimplifying. In fact, my opinion was that the Bills should retain Nate and risk letting Fletcher and Kelsay go, THEN address the O-Line. They still could have signed Dockery or Steinbach. Could they have also signed Walker and not gone over what they've spent already? The question probably should be, who cares? He has not been a good lineman in the NFL, that's just a fact. I'd rather be looking for a #2a DE than a #1 corner, especially considering how HEAVILY the Bills leaned on that corner this year to get to the point of respectability.

 

You guys keep trying to generate these excuses why they HAD to make this decision or that and it's not the case. We went thru this when TD cut Ted Washington, traded Price, let Winfield and Williams walk, and even last year with Milloy and Adams........usually based on some hokey salary cap nonsense. Yet here they stood on March 1 with over $30M in cap room in a sellers market on the heels of 7 years and no playoffs. Wake up and smell it folks. MISMANAGEMENT.

 

Please explain how retaining Nate was an option? If you are going to argue that the Bills should have paid Nate what hte 49ers did, or close to it, you're going to have a tough time convincing anyone on this Board...

[Scraps]

One thing everyone seems to agree with in this thread is that the Bills could have done 1 of 2 things (an over-simplification but bear with me):

 

1) Keep Nate and Fletch (with the money given to Dockery and Walker) and addressed the o-line through the draft

 

OR

 

2) Let Nate and Fletch go and address the o-line with free-agency (Walker and Dockery), and worry about MLB and CB in the draft/lower-tier FAs.

 

They obviously went with #2.

 

BADOL seems to be suggesting they should've gone with #1.

 

Why is it an either/or choice? The Bills have more room under the cap than 27 other teams in the NFL. While they may not have matched the offer that Nate Clements got, they screwed up by agreeing not to franchise him this year. Had they franchised him, they could have allowed him to talk to other teams and at least gotten something for him. They could have kept Fletcher and still could have addressed the O-line issue.

[Coach Tuesday]

Why is it an either/or choice? The Bills have more room under the cap than 27 other teams in the NFL. While they may not have matched the offer that Nate Clements got they screwed up by agreeing not to franchise him this year. Had they franchised him they could have allowed him to talk to other teams and at least gotten something for him. They could have kept Fletche and still could have addressed the O-line issue.

 

That is a different point. I can understand the argument that Marv never should have promised Nate he wouldn't franchise him. Fine. But he made that promise, and he honored it, and Nate was signed to a ridiculous contract well beyond his value as a player. I thought BADOL's argument was that they should've taken the money they were gonna give to Dockery and Walker and given it to Nate and Fletch, and if that's the case I think that's just wrong.

[BADOLBILZ]

That's how we roll. I wait to see what he's going to say, then parrot it. Everyone knows it - thanks for pointing it out.

 

I'm just trying to fit in. Another thing I'm pretty well known for. I do have a couple of questions: Is it as old as bitching about the team when the season is half a year away? Or is it as old as trying to continue to fit the "Marv is too old and was never any good anyway" sh(i)t that you've been trying to fill everyone's hat with for the last year and a half?

 

Insight? On TBD? Toss down another glass of self importance, padre.

 

That is how you roll. Except LA usually parrots YOU. Your act is old and tired, padre. Or is it skippy? Do you guys work off of an outline?

 

You old timer's should realize that THIS board is for the discrussion of football and I don't think I've seen you discuss personnel or coaching or anything football related in a long, long time. If ever. Someone, please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

All you have is some smart-ass remarks to feed your self-righteous online persona. Because God-forbid you actually discussed something football related, and it turned out that your facts were wrong. You've spent so much time carving up people on this forum for the past few years, you could hardly stand the humiliation.

[Scraps]

That is a different point. I can understand the argument that Marv never should have promised Nate he wouldn't franchise him. Fine. But he made that promise, and he honored it, and Nate was signed to a ridiculous contract well beyond his value as a player. I thought BADOL's argument was that they should've taken the money they were gonna give to Dockery and Walker and given it to Nate and Fletch, and if that's the case I think that's just wrong.

 

He has clearly stated his opinion here

 

In fact, my opinion was that the Bills should retain Nate and risk letting Fletcher and Kelsay go, THEN address the O-Line. They still could have signed Dockery or Steinbach. Could they have also signed Walker and not gone over what they've spent already? The question probably should be, who cares? He has not been a good lineman in the NFL, that's just a fact. I'd rather be looking for a #2a DE than a #1 corner, especially considering how HEAVILY the Bills leaned on that corner this year to get to the point of respectability.

 

He has never seen it as an either/or issue. He has consistently advocated keeping young proven talent and pointed out the Bills failure to do so for years.

[Dawgg]

Please stop criticizing management.

 

This board is meant for everyone to gush about every move the Bills make, no matter how dumb it may have been.

 

My favorite is the annual "We're going to the playoffs!" predictions around this time of year... what are we... 0-7 now?

 

He has clearly stated his opinion here

He has never seen it as an either/or issue. He has consistently advocated keeping young proven talent and pointed out the Bills failure to do so for years.

[BADOLBILZ]

Please explain how retaining Nate was an option? If you are going to argue that the Bills should have paid Nate what hte 49ers did, or close to it, you're going to have a tough time convincing anyone on this Board...

 

The Bills spent more guaranteed money on Walker and Kelsay than the Niners did on Nate. Quite a bit more. If the Dockery and Walker comparison didn't work, maybe that'll help ya'. Then again, maybe not. That's long been the problem discussing football in the offseason, you can't argue against unconditional faith and like Donahoe for several years before him, Marv is still on honeymoon with a lot of you.

[cåblelady]

The Bills spent more guaranteed money on Walker and Kelsay than the Niners did on Nate. Quite a bit more. If the Dockery and Walker comparison didn't work, maybe that'll help ya'. Then again, maybe not. That's long been the problem discussing football in the offseason, you can't argue against unconditional faith and like Donahoe for several years before him, Marv is still on honeymoon with a lot of you.

I'm finally over the Bills letting Andre Reed go. It took awhile, though.

[BillnutinHouston]

Remember Whitner and Simpson were studs even though they were rookies.

 

 

Why don't I remember that?